Smart People

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lucretius said:
To Faith1960:

St. Thomas teaches that ultimately there only two arguments against the existence of God: the argument from evil (God is Good, but there is evil, therefore no God) and the argument from science (we don’t need God to explain anything, therefore God is an archaic hypothesis). The “New Atheists” are simply the old atheists with more evangical fervor (and usually a misunderstanding of arguments for and against their viewpoint).

Atheism isn’t now any more rationally viable then it was in ancient times. An example of an ancient atheist would be, of course, Lucretius 😃

Christi pax,

Lucretius
Click to expand...
LOL!
 
MrSnaith said:
In my opinion, which isn’t to say a lot, the reason is the same as that for which it was the highly educated who were most involved in the gas chambers and death camps of the holocaust.

Education forms the mind of the one being educated. Therefore, if you can control education, you can literally form how a person perceives the world, the nature of humanity, morality, and so on.

Consider the general cosmological outlook of the average person educated through normal means (i.e., the public and/or secular school system) and compare it to that of the average person who has been homeschooled, or educated in a private institution, or a Catholic school system, especially if the education that is found in the home corresponds to the education found in the school. My bet is that you would see a very high correspondence in the kind of education received and their theistic/atheistic outlook.

If you want an explanation as to why the highly educated (not to mention the general population at large) are more atheistic than ever, I say look no further than the educators and the curriculums.
Click to expand...
But why so many college professors are atheist? Is it because of politics, like Fr. Barron said, or some other reason?
 
In the Old Testament, Israel usually starts sinning when they are wealthy and strong: then God has to then punish Israel so that they would worship the true God again (the Babylonian exile, for example). This is a theme throughout history: man worships God best when he suffering on earth. He turns to idols when he is fat and wealthy. Adam wasn’t created in hell, and then rebelled: he was created in Paradise, and then rebelled. There is a saying: the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.

I think that many atheists today abandon God simply because they don’t think they need Him. Our delicious food, TV, warm houses, and access to contraception have turned into idols; we have abandoned the True God and his commandments for indulgent sensory pleasure.

This is why I fear for our time and our children’s time (if we even have any: look at the abortion rate): we have become fat, lazy, heretical, and ungrateful pagans. How long will it take for God to correct us. As we see throughout history, the Lord’s correction isn’t pretty.
 
To Faith1960:

I don’t usually remember specific quotes, but rather general ideas when it comes to authors. So although the topic I think is found in one of his numerous, unnamed, newspaper articles, I’m not sure. However, I think he humorously points at the disagreement of scholars in his Introduction to the Book of Job, which can be found online here: chesterton.org/introduction-to-job/
You can try Heretics, it might be in there (the text is probably online somewhere).
Sorry I can’t be more helpful 😦

To DaddyGirl:

The author is probably appealing to St. Thomas’s “Third Way” argument for Classcial Theism. Catholics are de fide Classical Theists: if you want a general idea of what this means (from a Thomist point of view) try these: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/07/classical-theism-roundup.html

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
To say that atheists have higher IQs than theists is misleading for a number of reasons, but I don’t want to spend too much time bringing up all the details. However as someone mentioned before, majority opinion does not equate with truth or fact. One person could be right out of one-hundred.

Anyway, I would like to direct the poster to the works of Edward Feser (philosopher), Stephen M. Barr (physicist), Antoine Suarez (physicist/philosopher), G.E.M Anscombe (philosopher) and of course St. Thomas Aquinas. Very intelligent people who happen to be Catholic. Edward Feser actually writes a bit about your concern and what I’ve come to find is that the internet and popular media like to blow “findings” out of proportion in order to cause a stir. However, I wouldn’t let “studies” or “findings” like this trouble you. As a bio/chem. researcher myself, I can say with confidence that most of what you read is bunk. I hate to bash my own field in the process, but it’s true.

Also, regarding Aquinas’ Five Ways, the Five Ways are merely five general bullet points for a much larger work that fleshes out the arguments for God’s existence. Most New Atheists (who are not philosophers or if they are, are not experts in this particular branch of philosophy) attack a caricature of the Five Ways. Even former atheist Anthony Flew changed his mind after reading in depth the works of Aristotle, whom Aquinas read and drew inspiration from.

I digress now to the poster’s concern. If you’d like a more detailed look at the issue I highly recommend you read “The Last Superstition” by Edward Feser. Trust me, the internet trolls and media can be a bit discouraging, but remember, when the church first started we were in the minority. So whether or not most “professionals” are theist or not doesn’t mean that they know something we don’t, or that they’re smarter than us. I find that most people that assert their intelligence over others don’t make sound cases for their assertions, but merely show everyone that they have a high opinion of themselves.

If not, check out some of the articles on Feser’s site.

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/search?q=atheist+philosophers

BTW, I must kindly ask that I not be engaged in a debate or called to defend a point at the time being. I am not open to debate anyone at the moment because I am in mourning and wish to be left in peace. Please understand and pray for my deceased relative. Thank you, and God bless.
 
DaddyGirl said:
Yup.
Adam and Eve got in mighty big trouble when they acted independently and sought the tree of “knowledge”.
The moral of that story, combined with what you say above, sounds like a warning not to get too smart. Don’t look beyond what you are told. Don’t seek out new knowledge. Don’t go out of the comfort zone.

.
Click to expand...
Correction: tree of knowledge of good and evil

There are many reasons why God may not have wanted Adam and Eve to have that knowledge–yet–but here’s one take on it.

godandscience.org/apologetics/tree.html

Also, countless times in scripture we read about the pursuing truth and knowledge; however, what the other quote you responded to is saying when you read it in context is not referring to praising those remaining in ignorance, but rather that even those who are not “intellectual” in the pompous sense can know God. Back in the day the poor and downtrodden were seen as cursed, but later they were restored with dignity and placed on the same level as everyone else. It’s a very rich theme in the New Testament as well as in the prophecies in Isaiah (everyone being in God’s family/kingdom, the righteous of all nations, etc.)

Hope that helps and cleared up some misconceptions.
 
DaddyGirl said:
Thomas may teach that…but today’s arguments against the existence of God are much more expansive and numerous than these two arguments.

.
Click to expand...
I believe St. Thomas to be correct for this instance: I have not found a positive argument, meaning one that tries to demonstrate the non-existence of God (do you know how hard it is to prove a negative?) The best atheists can argue is that God is inherently incoherent, which can utilize the argument from evil. A third class might be refutations of arguments for the existence of God, or revealing contradictions in the attributes of God (these have been very unsuccessful). But even these tend to take on a scientific nature. Like, for example, Dr. Richard Dawkins uses information theory in his argument about God being “too complex”, which would fall under the argument from science category. The same goes with his Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit. Arguments on the improbability of God would mostly be arguments from science as well. Furthermore, counter-arguments are not positive; they are attached to theistic arguments like a parasite to a dog, and thus can’t prove the non-existence of the deity, but can only prove that one way theists approach the existence of God is incorrect.

Just to be clearer, the phrases in parentheses in that post are not ment to be real arguments per se, but rather outlines, geni of arguments, as opposed to species of arguments ( the arguments of Dr. Dawkins would be species of the “argument from science” genus).

Maybe saying there are two categories of arguments would be more coherent.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
I believe there could be some issue with the way scientific institutions are set up these days (universities etc). It is very difficult to forge a scientific/academic career and reach the level of Professor without being completely self-serving. Thus I think many truly religious scientists find it harder to reach the heights of credibility that Atheist scientists do, simply because they are unwilling to adopt the cutthroat nature of the successful modern scientist if they are sincere about their faith.

I am not suggesting all Athiest scientists are utterly self-serving (certainly not), but I am suggesting that truly religious people tend not to be.
 
HillsongUnited said:
To say that atheists have higher IQs than theists is misleading for a number of reasons, but I don’t want to spend too much time bringing up all the details. However as someone mentioned before, majority opinion does not equate with truth or fact. One person could be right out of one-hundred.

Anyway, I would like to direct the poster to the works of Edward Feser (philosopher), Stephen M. Barr (physicist), Antoine Suarez (physicist/philosopher), G.E.M Anscombe (philosopher) and of course St. Thomas Aquinas. Very intelligent people who happen to be Catholic. Edward Feser actually writes a bit about your concern and what I’ve come to find is that the internet and popular media like to blow “findings” out of proportion in order to cause a stir. However, I wouldn’t let “studies” or “findings” like this trouble you. As a bio/chem. researcher myself, I can say with confidence that most of what you read is bunk. I hate to bash my own field in the process, but it’s true.

Also, regarding Aquinas’ Five Ways, the Five Ways are merely five general bullet points for a much larger work that fleshes out the arguments for God’s existence. Most New Atheists (who are not philosophers or if they are, are not experts in this particular branch of philosophy) attack a caricature of the Five Ways. Even former atheist Anthony Flew changed his mind after reading in depth the works of Aristotle, whom Aquinas read and drew inspiration from.

I digress now to the poster’s concern. If you’d like a more detailed look at the issue I highly recommend you read “The Last Superstition” by Edward Feser. Trust me, the internet trolls and media can be a bit discouraging, but remember, when the church first started we were in the minority. So whether or not most “professionals” are theist or not doesn’t mean that they know something we don’t, or that they’re smarter than us. I find that most people that assert their intelligence over others don’t make sound cases for their assertions, but merely show everyone that they have a high opinion of themselves.

If not, check out some of the articles on Feser’s site.

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/search?q=atheist+philosophers

BTW, I must kindly ask that I not be engaged in a debate or called to defend a point at the time being. I am not open to debate anyone at the moment because I am in mourning and wish to be left in peace. Please understand and pray for my deceased relative. Thank you, and God bless.
Click to expand...
I will add them to my Rosary tonight.
God Bless.
Pete.
 
Faith1960 said:
Why are so many people atheists now? Do they know something we don’t?
Click to expand...
No. They were never really given an opportunity to come to know God. Modern man equates God with superstition. We look at the way people in the past thought that God did everything, then we come to understand these things ourselves scientifically, and realize that they can be explained based on facts and data instead.

That is a smug way of looking at God. God of the cracks in our knowledge, that goes to zero over time.

People used to be less smug. The understanding of God from James Maxwell for example was that if the universe is really understandable to a person, then that means that it had a common rational source. For example,if all matter is the same everywhere, then it must have a common source, a creator.

Modern man thinks that because the universe is understandable then we don’t need God. That is an exact flip in understanding. I often point this out to scientific-atheists and that usually causes them to reconsider things.
 
College professor is such a vague term. Why should I care about a psychologist’s, a biologist’s, or a sociologist’s opinion on theology? The psychologist is trained in psychology, not theology. So, ultimately, it appears that his opinion is as valuable as the man’s from the the street. Yet, if the psychologist spoke on, say quantum physics, the physicists would dismiss him as an ignorant quack! And the village “skeptic” would blindly follow the physicists. So, when a certain biologist says things about theology that a theologian would clearly understand as irrelevant or ignorant, and the theologians call him out on it, why do people (especially so called “skeptics”) ignorantly still accept his opinion as valid? What is with college professors arrogantly declaring as dogma ideas that they clearly have no idea about, and are not an authority on? I’m with Bishop Sheen when I say we need a call for intolerance: northamericanmartyrs.org/pdf/Plea-for-Intolerance.pdf

Now, I’m not saying that a non-theologian’s opinion on theology is automatically invalid. If someone is familiar with the subject, yet is not an authority on it, I would and have contemplate his ideas. A degree doesn’t make your ideas correct, it only makes you an authority to teach on the subject. However, when you know a little about theology and philosophy, and you read The God Delusion and other similar books, you simply understand that Dr. Dawkins has no understanding. But when called out on it, irritatingly he calls his refusal to correct his ignorance a refusal to study “leprechaunolgy” and other empty rhetoric. It’s like if a creationist were to dismiss evolution simply because “babies don’t come from monkeys, so obviously evolution is a stupid theory.” If Dr. Dawkins speaks on biology, an area he is an authority on, we should listen smartly, as well as listening to Dr. Dawkins’s opponents (like Dr. Stephan Jay Gould), who are also trained in the science.

deep breath Ok, I’m done 😊

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
Faith1960 said:
Why ARE so many professors atheist? Is it because of politics, like Fr. Barron suggested or some other reason?

Also, is there a listing of organizations for doctors or scientists who are Christian? I think I saw it online long ago but can’t find it now.
Click to expand...
Because so much of western intellectual thought has been taken over by “marxist analysis.”

In the fields of social work, sociology, history, philosophy, education, and even religious education “critical theory” is the baseline.

In Catholic Religious Education for instance Thomas Groome is the guru, the “go-to” expert and his books are riddled with marxist dogma.

I’m not talking about political marxism,but marxist analysis, the process of looking at situations and working to resolve them. In its process however, this analysis is by nature deterministic, and based on the material dialectic - the thesis/antithesis/synthesis model,

In the realm of Catholic theology therefore, if the thesis is that only men should be priests, the antithesis is that women should be priests. But because of the marxist determinist process there has to be a synthesis where both men and women can be priests.

Feminism uses this model.

Part and parcel of this materialist philosophy is that God is ultimately useless if he exists at all, and tradition gets in the way of change.
 
To Faith1960:

Some of the most famous Christians who are scientists in our modern times are:
  1. Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project (not Catholic, however 😦 ) He wrote a good book, called the Language of God, reconciling theism with the modern theory of evolution.
  2. Fr. Georges Lemaître, founder of the “Big Bang” theory and was the first propose the idea that the universe is expanding (he was a Catholic priest).
  3. Gregory Mendel, the father of Genetics; his pea experiments and the laws he derived from them were key to supporting Charles Darwin’s theories on natural selection. If it wasn’t for Br. Mendel, Darwin would have been a nobody today 🙂 (he was a Augustinian friar).
As you can see, many distinguished scientists are very religious. I can also put out that Descrates, Galileo, Kepler, and pretty much every scientist before the 1700’s was a Christian. In Kepler’s case, in his notes he actually writes spontaneous prayers.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
Lucretius said:
To Faith1960:

Some of the most famous Christians who are scientists in our modern times are:
  1. Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project (not Catholic, however 😦 ) He wrote a good book, called the Language of God, reconciling theism with the modern theory of evolution.
  2. Fr. Georges Lemaître, founder of the “Big Bang” theory and was the first propose the idea that the universe is expanding (he was a Catholic priest).
  3. Gregory Mendel, the father of Genetics; his pea experiments and the laws he derived from them were key to supporting Charles Darwin’s theories on natural selection. If it wasn’t for Br. Mendel, Darwin would have been a nobody today 🙂 (he was a Augustinian friar).
As you can see, many distinguished scientists are very religious. I can also put out that Descrates, Galileo, Kepler, and pretty much every scientist before the 1700’s was a Christian. In Kepler’s case, in his notes he actually writes spontaneous prayers.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
Click to expand...
I’m pretty much only interested in modern scientists. Got any more?
 
Faith1960 said:
I’m pretty much only interested in modern scientists. Got any more?
Click to expand...
Boatloads of them, even further with other religions who debated Hawkins points.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FRobert_Spitzer_%2528priest%2529&ei=1EasVMnTLYumgwSF74OAAg&usg=AFQjCNEhqB-wnNATL5Y88kJ-sRC4IrQXxg&bvm=bv.82001339,d.eXY

Smart isn’t exclusive to one side or the other. Irrational thinking though logical is. 😃
 
GaryTaylor said:
Boatloads of them, even further with other religions who debated Hawkins points.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FRobert_Spitzer_%2528priest%2529&ei=1EasVMnTLYumgwSF74OAAg&usg=AFQjCNEhqB-wnNATL5Y88kJ-sRC4IrQXxg&bvm=bv.82001339,d.eXY

Smart isn’t exclusive to one side or the other. Irrational thinking though logical is. 😃
Click to expand...
Boatloads…any more besides Spitzer, whom I admire?
 
To Faith1960:

What do you mean by “Modern”? That term can mean anyone from the 1600s on. However, if you mean modern as “those of the 20th and 21th centuries” then Dr. Collins and Fr. Lemaitre would qualify (Fr. Lemaitre was a contemporary of Einstein, and they debated one another a bit). Dr. Collins, on the other hand, is still alive and kicking today (he’s the Director of the National Institute of Health, and, interestingly enough, was Christopher Hitchens’s friend and doctor).

Anyway, GaryTaylor is on the right track when it comes to Christian scientists. Just search in the Jesuits. Also, John Lennox is a mathematician (and philosopher of science), as well as a strong Christian debater.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
Lucretius said:
To Faith1960:

What do you mean by “Modern”? That term can mean anyone from the 1600s on. However, if you mean modern as “those of the 20th and 21th centuries” then Dr. Collins and Fr. Lemaitre would qualify (Fr. Lemaitre was a contemporary of Einstein, and they debated one another a bit). Dr. Collins, on the other hand, is still alive and kicking today (he’s the Director of the National Institute of Health, and, interestingly enough, was Christopher Hitchens’s friend and doctor).

Anyway, GaryTaylor is on the right track when it comes to Christian scientists. Just search in the Jesuits. Also, John Lennox is a mathematician (and philosopher of science), as well as a strong Christian debater.

Christi pax,
Tree
Lucretius
Click to expand...
Thanks, yeah, I mean 20th and 21st century scientists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top